Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit. This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code. Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed. Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes. Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch. Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit. Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported. You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion. Outdated suggestions cannot be applied. This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved. Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews. Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments. Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge. Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is this "@" notation to specify the auth standard/used elsewhere?
An alternative would be to pass the auth info as a separate argument to this function.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not sure I'm getting this right, but the de-facto indication of whether HTTP Basic Auth is about to be used, is, adding (at least) a username in form of
http://USERNAME@HOST:PORT/PATH
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, that was my question, whether
http://USERNAME@HOST:PORT/PATH
is the standard way to add a username/password.This format is specified in the RFC for URLs: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1738
So, let's keep this as you have it.